The Presidential Candidates as Brands

As a Canadian, I have watched the presidential campaign in the United States with a detached fascination. As the campaign has progressed, I’ve become increasingly numbed and disappointed, and not just by the torrent of disingenuous and shrill attack campaign ads. What’s even more interesting – as a student of marketing and PR – is how the candidates have ignored some of the basic rules of communication – in particular the core tenets of marketing. If the candidates were being judged as brands competing in the marketplace - they would get very mixed reviews. Let’s review how they rank against some key elements of successful branding.

• Focus: One of the central tenets of effective branding is having a clear, cogent brand identity. If customers (or voters) don’t have a clear sense of what you stand for, you have a serious problem. I would argue both candidates have muddled their identity and messages to the point where most voters are unclear what they really believe and what they stand for. Take McCain as an example. He starts the year as a renegade maverick who proudly bucks most of the Republican establishment. In the past few months, he has predictably softened his message on key issues and taken on the mantra as the Straight Talk Express. More recently, shaken by the implosion of the financial markets, he has apparently turned his back on decades of traditional Republican dogma about small government and free markets and remade himself a deathbed convert to regulation and Wall Street bashing. His focus on key issues has gone through a similar windmill depending on the vagaries of the campaign. Now he has belatedly joined Obama as the candidate for change and positioned himself as the real outsider. Whatever your political views on these twists and turns, it’s likely unclear to many what McCain stands for anymore…beyond perhaps getting elected. It doesn’t help, of course, that McCain’s opponent Obama is doing all he can to attack McCain’s positioning (see friend of George Bush ads) and protect his own turf.
• Differentiation: As per the above, while both candidates are striving to carve out their distinctive positions (and inherent advantages as candidates) their drifting positions have likely made their pitches more diffuse and confusing.  Here’s a test: who is running as the most credible change agent, Washington outsider and somebody who no allegiance to lobbyists? Yes…both of them. This one should be easy given the inherent polarization of politics and electoral campaigns, but aside from splits on a few fundamental issues the candidates are stepping on the same platform.  
• Credibility: This is a tough one given the inevitable histrionics and exaggeration of political campaigns, but even by those low standards of probity I would suggest the aggressively partisan advertising – which is usually quickly debunked by most impartial fact-checkers – seriously erodes the credibility of both candidates. It’s never a good thing when voters (or customers) expect most of what you say to be only distantly related to the truth.
• Consistency: See comments above. Even the most ardent political junkie would be hard pressed to keep track of the protean positions of the two candidates. It’s fine to adjust your position on key issues, but another thing altogether to do so for political expediency. The only thing that is consistent is the reactive and poll-driven messaging. I would also give Obama some credit for being consistent about his campaign theme and core messages – despite pressure from insiders to change it when the polls dip.
• Relevance: Most brand stewards stive to get to know their customers and respond to their desires and aspirations so they’ll buy your products or services. In politics, you use the same method to get their votes rather than their money. Given the amount of polling involved in this campaign, it’s clear the campaigns are working hard to be relevant to the voters…all the way down to specific voter segments or even neighborhoods. I’d have to give them decent marks on this one – in fact this may be one area where marketing has something to learn from politics.
• Third-party (customer) endorsement: Though the parties and candidates have thousand of passionate fans, it’s much harder to find impartial supporters who are not partisan or dogmatic. It does appear Obama has generated genuine enthusiasm among many who have not traditionally voted, so give him higher marks for creating buzz outside the traditional Democratic circles.
• Positive word-of-mouth: See point above. Plenty of noise and ardent cheer-leading but it’s not clear how much is real or will last beyond the election.   
• Compelling advertising: Though many pundits claim critical campaign advertising is effective it’s clear that most of the advertising we’ve seen in this campaign has been formulaic and largely lacking in creativity and imagination. You know the type: highly critical attack ads that stick closely to the tried-and-true formula of dramatic banner headlines and splashy visuals. No subtlety here. Ads that break the monotony (and cacophony) are very rare…I can’t honestly recall one that stuck out. And there lies a major flaw of these campaigns – they are hopelessly predictable. Even if they work and some of the mud sticks - which is debatable – I firmly believe they ultimately erode the reputation and credibility of the candidates rather than enhance it. 

Of course, unlike the real world one of these candidates will end up making the sale – and getting elected – no matter what they do. That’s lucky for them, because if they were in an open marketplace they may not close the deal.

Finding Social Media Talent Like Needle in Haystack

Over the past few months, I’ve been involved in a few corporate job searches (including some for my own team) that require talented communicators who have experience with social media. Should be easy, right? This is one of the most important trends impacting marketing and communication in years and has fueled endless hype and soul-searching in several professions. But not so fast. The reality – from my humble observation as a hiring manager in communications – is that there are very few professionals who can legitimately claim to understand both PR and social media. Part of the reason for this is few companies are actually involved in social media (recent reports suggest only 15% of Fortune 500 companies have blogs), so the number of professionals with hands-on experience in the field is still very limited. What does exist – based on the resumes I’m getting – is a range of highly specialized workers who aren’t necessary appropriate for a Web 2.0 communication gig: web designers and architects; IT experts who understand the technology but not the strategy; technical writers; renegade bloggers; old-school communication experts; and, intranet or Web writers. Very rarely will you find somebody with skills and experience that cross across the technical, practical and strategic sides of the equation.

Most of the folk I have found with this rare mix are in agencies, who seem much further ahead than their corporate cousins on this topic. This is probably as it should be - PR and specialized agencies should be on the cutting-edge after all. And I’ve had great experience with importing agency talent into a corporate gig. But no matter who I hire, the sad reality is that there are still few professionals who have the experience and aptitude to help companies navigate into social media. I’m hoping that changes over the coming years.

Can Employees Handle the Truth?

“You can’t handle the truth!”. Many of us remember that famous line shouted so eloquently by Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men. In recent weeks I’ve had several discussions with peers and colleagues that ask whether this quote is accurate when it comes to sharing information with employees. One example: sharing the results of an employee survey.

Here is the scenario. Assume you have just conducted an annual global survey of employees for a global company. The workforce is slightly cynical about the process due to uneven communication and lack of visible follow-up during previous surveys.  Sharing the highlights of the results – and focusing on driving tangible changes based on the findings – is a given. So is using all relevant communication channels, including regional and local managers, to cascade the information. But here’s where it gets less certain. Would you make most the data available to all employees, to peruse or compare at their leisure? Should you allow them to review customized reports with breakdowns by country, function or role? Would all this result in information overload and competitive sniping or foster a new sense of transparency and trust?

Here’s where we came down on this issue. Given the latent cynicism of employees regarding surveys in particular (and management in general) the default should always be to share information – or at least make it available – unless there is a good reason not to. In the case of surveys, one could reasonably argue the information is better presented with the proper context and with the right level of detail and local customization. It also helps to have key leaders take a personal role in the communication process to emphasize their personal interest and accountability. But it also sends an important message if in addition to the proactive communication process the company allows any employee to access relevant data or reports (for example on a dedicated website.)

There should be limits to this transparency, however. The obvious one is to protect the confidentiality of respondents and not present detailed data that allows close comparisons beyond (or really below) the major functions or regions, since that might create dissension and/or invite criticisms of specific teams or managers. The other is to ensure employees understand the information is confidential and not for external distribution. But beyond that the onus should be on opening the windows, so to speak.

Many discussions involving the issue of transparency with employees implicitly suggest most employees are not capable of fully understanding information unless it’s fully “digested” for them, or not responsible enough to have access to the data – with the inference they will use it to attack managers, foster dissension or even leak the information. The inference is usually based on the employees’ level and job function (white collar is ok, blue collar is not.) Though there will always be bad apples in any company, in my 20 years of experience I’ve never seen compelling evidence that a majority of employees will abuse the priviledge of candor, or that the risk outweighs the benefits. And I’m don’t necessarily buy the logic that the workforce can be easily divided into white or blue collar (or front-line) workers. Some would argue age, or generational divisions, is much more relevant. 

No matter the workforce, the role of the communication professional is to find the right balance between candor and overload, and the best way to share information and foster relevant dialogue. It’s also critical that we strive to be relevant and responsive, so the communication process is a dialogue rather than a one-way street. But the default should always be to give employees the benefit of the doubt and treat them like intelligent, trustworthy partners. That’s the only way we can build credibility in the process (and leadership team) and drive employee engagement.

Is TV Advertising Tone Deaf?

I continue to be fascinated by what appears to be a huge gap between the reality of the market and what I see on television advertising. Take automobile ads. For months now, we’ve been reading about disastrous financial results for the Big 3 automakers (and even some of their competitors) as customers move away from gas-guzzling SUVs and macho trucks. The CEOs of these companies are finally acknowledging that their business model is broken, and are belatedly changing their product lines, manufacturing priorities and supply strategies.  So where does that leave their advertising? Apparently, firmly entrenched in 2002.

I’ve made no secret that I think most automobile advertising is depressingly timid, repetitive and devoid of creativity. But now the marketing also appears to be hopelessly out of sync with reality. In the past few weeks I continue to see numerous TV ads pushing trucks, SUVs and beautiful vistas. The push for large vehicles seem to vastly outnumber those for newer models (like Ford’s Edge.)  Even Toyota has been relentlessly pushing their Tundra, their version of a truck behemoth. The one campaign that stuck out to me was, ironically, the pitch that Chrysler would guarantee 3 years of locked gas prices for buyers. How’s that for delaying the inevitable.  

Even acknowledging the fact many of these campaigns were purchased and developed months ago and there is a built-in lag in the system, it’s surprising to see the torrent of advertising that appears oblivious to the existing reality. And most importantly, they are clearly not working. The Honda Civic has become the hottest selling model and smaller, fuel efficient cars are booming in popularity. This past quarter the U.S. auto firms reported decreases in sales ranging from 20% to almost 40%. The Big 3 appear to be mortally wounded, bleeding money and seemingly unable to change their fortunes. Perhaps their archaic advertising is part of the problem.

The Free Web Economics (Redux)

For me, one of the most fascinating elements of the Web 2.0 revolution is the proliferation of free or almost free applications and services available on the internet. I know my last post was on this topic, but bear with me….I haven’t really heard a clear and convincing explanation of the phenomenon until I read this article in the Globe & Mail (a plug for Canada’s best newspaper) featuring an interview with Wired editor Chris Anderson.

Anderson argues that the new economics of the Web – where it is very cheap (and becoming cheaper every day) for anybody to establish sites and reach millions and bandwidth, storage and processing power are increasingly affordable – has fostered a new age of free economics. Anderson suggests that the obsession with finding a way to “monetize” online services and applications may be misguided, and is not a pre-ordained outcome for all companies on the Internet. He posits that the new model is a “freemium” where less than 1% of heavy users can subsidize free use for the other 99%.

I’m not an economist, but I found this discussion really compelling. And from what I’ve experienced, this trend is a definite reality and it’s had a very positive impact on the reach and impact of the Web. The implications for personal users are mind-boggling, but this is also relevant to professional communicators. The move towards freeware provides huge opportunities for those of us trying to build blogs or create and distribute digital content, but as I’ve argued before the concept is anathema to most IT departments, which are inherently risk-averse and susprisingly unfamiliar (from my experience) with social media. It will be interesting to watch when this trend towards free services enters the realm of corporate IT…if ever.

Working on the Inside

I had some interesting  conversations last week on the topic of employee communications, notably if and how organizations are adopting the lessons of social networks and the Web into their internal strategies. I think the verdict is decidedly mixed. Some companies continue to hesitate on making the shift from traditional communication to dynamic conversations. In some cases the caution is valid (for example in unionized manufacturing environments) but in many it’s a function of ignorance and/or inertia. Other organizations have made good progress - introducing internal blogs, wikis, RSS capability, customized intranet portals, robust search engines, digital content production, interactive training modules…among many others. And the point of these tools is not the technology, but rather the philosophy behind them – to foster candid dialogue, faciliate peer-to-peer collaboration, encourage employee input and innovation, provide relevant and interesting training, allow for time-shifting of information, and leverage existing or potential networks of like-minded workers. But often these successes focus on the basic internal mandate – helping employees do their jobs efficiently and effectively.  

What I don’t see nearly as often is companies that strive to make their employees fans of their company, and ultimately active ambassadors outside the organization. From my experience, these are areas where few companies dare to tread and even fewer succeed. The companies that do this well - Nike, Apple, Patagonia - have found a formula that fosters legitimate commitment and passion among their employees. It starts with liking (loving?) the products and services provided by the company, of course, but also includes strong affinity with the vision and beliefs of the organization. How do the companies do it? I think it starts with the basics – make sure your employees use (and like) your own products.  Let them define and represent the brand inside and outside the work environment. Foster a true sense of community. Treat them like your main marketing asset, not an after-thought.

Once you have this well informed, excited group of employees the next step is leveraging them as advocates for the company (and brand.) Let them interact with customers or share their thoughts on the company blog – or their own blog. Give them the tools to create and share their own marketing materials (like viral videos.) Make them the focus of external events or presentations. And of course, let them use and promote your products.  

Why does all this matter? Can’t we just focus on making sure they do their jobs and drive revenue? Think of it this way. Even with effective internal communication, you can have a workforce that is either invisible or critical outside the company. The ideal is to have a majority of employees act as your de-facto marketing army, spreading the good word with customers and peers alike. No matter where your organization is on this spectrum, it all starts with empathy and respect for the employees. Passion and alignment cannot be forced or manufactured. Maybe it’s just about treating your employees like customers…your best customers.

Update: What is a company’s worst nightmare? Employees that turn against the company and corrode the brand reputation – think of them as “kryptonite” ambassadors. See this  BusinessWeek article on the problems at Wal-Mart stemming from disgruntled and cynical employees.

When Process Stifles Innovation

A recent BusinessWeek cover story on 3M raised some interesting questions about whether a laser focus on process improvement via Six Sigma or similar off-shoots can end up inhibiting innovation and creativity in an organization. In 3M’s case, a maniacal devotion to rigorous analysis and process improvement – where repetition and predictability are critical – seemed to stifle the company’s legendary creativity.  This theme – of a well-intentioned desire to analyze and refine established business processes becoming an impediment to adaptability and innovation – is very relevant to public relations.

I see parallels with the 3M story in the communication functions of several organizations, where an almost stubborn allegiance to structure, process and even titles prevents the team from fully embracing new trends and innovations. I’ve witnessed a number of cases – which I suspect are reflective of a much broader trend – where communication professionals were virtually locked into roles that were defined by specific projects, tactics or even tools. The problem is, some of these tools or titles can become irrelevant or obsolete from one day to the next. And that’s not a bad thing. (As an example, on my own team I would estimate about half the roles on the team today did not even exist a year ago.) It would make much more sense for roles to be fluid and dynamic and for teams to align themselves to broad strategic objectives rather than defined responsibilities. Fighting to retain old titles or hierarchies is a symptom of a company’s inability or unwillingness to adapt and evolve to remain relevant.  And it excludes the critical elements of learning and unpredictability from the equation. Slavish dedication to any model or process – whether it is dedicated to fixing defects or driving share of voice – can be a dangerous thing.  

Want to see a way to do it right? Take a look at another story in BW on advertising agency Goodby Silverstein & Partners, which totally changed its approach and structure to be truly media-agnostic.

Why PR Doesn’t Get It

Read an interesting post by Dave McLure that makes a strong case that PR simply does not “get” the Web 2.0 revolution. I don’t want to pile on, but I have to agree with many of his points. I think the most important issue is not one of talent or even willingness, but one of knowledge. As I’ve reported before, far too many PR professionals are woefully ignorant of emerging techonology and trends that impact communication; that’s ok (I guess) if you are an accountant or pilot, but not if you are being paid to help companies communicate, buld their brand and sell their products. And it’s not ok when entire generations of consumers are getting information and joining conversations outside traditional media. The irony is that some PR agencies can easily leverage expertise in the area of new media - notably those that are in global holding companies and can partner with a range of specialized, cutting-edge boutiques - but too often these firms are not closely integrated with the PR teams. The only PR agencies I have seen that truly “get it” are those that have brought Web 2.0 expertise in the house, so to speak, causing the entire agency to learn new tricks and join the revolution. Here’s hoping the rest of the PR community gets on board.  

Hello world!

Well, after an amazing dive into the world of digital media the last year or so, I’ve decided to make the plunge myself. I know I’ve learned alot from blogs and social networks the past year or so, so I figure I might as well join the conversation – notably about the evolving field of communications (or PR as some call it). Hopefully I can provide a (somewhat) unique perspective and make a few good online friends along the way. Cheers